Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:
- Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.
- Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.
- If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].
- If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
Request
Hi i brought an ANI against User:Onetonycousins for incivility. As the administrator who took action the last time he was brought to ANI, you should roughly still be aware of this users past incivility. Can you have a look here and see what you think should be done this in regards to his comments. Mabuska (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Waiting for the user to reply. Sandstein 16:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
old rational
There is no consensus for usage in the infobox, although consensus does not over rule policy and guidelines - your rational is weak and unsupported by non free policy and guidelines and is actually one of the reasons for the disruption, suit yourself reverting but that rational is incorrect completely. and reverting my improvement won't change anything. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Couldn't we perhaps wait until the RfC about where to put the image concludes before getting all excited? Sandstein 23:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why keep a false non free rational for a moment longer and why revert to a false non free rational when it has been improved, anyway, I am only slightly excited, but here is something I work towards. and relates to your rational - replaceable -no, he's in jail. I am sure you have seen it many times before, in the heat of the moment, many users come and comment, yes, keep in the infobox, we need it, and then after the heat has gone away we revet back to standard policy. Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Loose interpretation of the fair use policy, goes against the mission of the foundation in regard to non free usage - to - "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license," foundation licencing policy and is the resolution on which our non free use policy rests.
- It's called a "rationale". It looks as though our disagreement is not about the rationale as such but the underlying question of whether we should use the image in the infobox or not. People can in good faith disagree about whether fair use allows that, you know. There's already a RFC going on about that question, so why don't we wait until it concludes and then adjust the rationale to match the usage that is eventually decided on? Sandstein 00:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I am not to a single E. I completely dispute your rationale and edited to improve and correct that, that false claim has imo caused a lot of disruption and you replaced it, your fair use rational for the infobox as you desire is wrong, completely wrong. I will leave it and see what happens, no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just a update comment, imo - Rationales shouldn't be written as weak as possible with the idea that "The old rationale also supports use in the infobox if that is what consensus ends up being" - they should be written as tight as possible - you should not need a consensus to support it, it should be unquestionably - tight. Your rationale for the Tuscon shooting has now been deleted and the picture completely removed from that article. What happens as did indeed happen was users with limited experience of copyright licensing and fair use guidelines read the rationale and accept it as is correct and then want that, support that, which creates the disruption I mentioned and can even create a temporary consensus in the heat of the moment which only serves to extend the disruption, as it will soon be questioned again by the more experienced uninvolved editors. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I do agree that the image does not also need to be used in the article about the shooting. If it is (and stays) removed from there, it makes sense to delete the corresponding rationale also. Sandstein 21:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I realise you didn't add that template and that it was just a duplicated copy of your rationale, as I see it, the looseness of your rationale would basically encourage multiple usage in any location. No worries, is non free use rationales something you do a lot of? Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- No. Sandstein 21:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- No me neither, I much prefer commons licencing, a lot of our fair use rationales fail even the slightest of investigation, for example - portion, our picture of the killer (alleged) is for all intent and purposes exactly the same as the original, to claim that only a portion of it is being used is really quite misleading, it has simply had a piece of irrelevant border trimmed and so imo fails the test - How much copyrighted material is used? The amount used must not make the work as a whole less valuable to the copyright holder. - anyway - enough about fair use templates, thanks for listening to my thoughts on the issue, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- No. Sandstein 21:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I realise you didn't add that template and that it was just a duplicated copy of your rationale, as I see it, the looseness of your rationale would basically encourage multiple usage in any location. No worries, is non free use rationales something you do a lot of? Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Overlinking
I think I might've seen here how you linked to a page of people poking fun at examples of overlinking. Do you have the link? thanks Enigmamsg 18:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Should be in User talk:Sandstein/Archives. Sandstein 18:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, so you don't remember it? Enigmamsg 18:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. Sandstein 19:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP:SILLIWILI what u were looking for? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. Sandstein 19:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, so you don't remember it? Enigmamsg 18:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
PMA
The thread got archived due to filibustering again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- No opinion about the filibustering, but if no uninvolved admin acts on what I believe is consensus, then the consensus probably wasn't that convincing. Sandstein 21:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- There was possibly a consensus but due to the subpaging, that made no one look at it again. If these behaviors are still occuring, it still probably means that the community restriction needs to be looked at again, possibly without PMA and B2C getting that involved.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Question
Hello Sandstein, need another advice from you, if you don't mind replying. Can you please take a look at this message and let me know if this type of messages could be falling into an incivility category: [1], especially this racist remark Importantly, this casts doubt whether Wikipedia editors with Azerbaijani passports are fit to contribute to this encyclopedia. Keep this in mind and think twice when violating Wiki rules? Thanks. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's not incivility, but ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct, which is even more inacceptable. I recommend making a WP:AE report. Sandstein 21:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Sandstein. I reported him on the board suggested above. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
AE Notice
Hi Sandstein. Thank you for reviewing and imposing sanctions. Since I disagreed with the decision, I filed an appeal on AE. Can you please review? Thanks in advance. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)